Almgren et al v. Shultz et al
Filing
35
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 33 Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendant William Shultz are dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state court. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2016)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
JON ALMGREN, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
7
ORDER DISMISSING
PLAINTIFFS’ STATE
LAW CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT WILLIAM
SHULTZ
v.
WILLIAM SHULTZ, et al.,
8
9
No. C 16-2611 CW
Defendants.
________________________________/
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Plaintiffs Jon Almgren and Melissa Almgren move for default
12
judgment against Defendant William Shultz.
13
retain jurisdiction over their state law claims against him.
14
Docket No. 33.
15
22.
16
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
17
state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice to re-filing
18
them in state court.
They ask the Court to
Defendant William Shultz defaulted.
Docket No.
Having considered the papers filed by Plaintiffs, the Court
19
BACKGROUND
20
This case arises from the tragic death of nine-year-old
21
Jordon Almgren on April 26, 2015 at the hands of Defendant William
22
Shultz.
23
case.
The Court has previously summarized the facts of the
Docket No. 19.
24
On May 13, 2016, the Almgrens filed this suit as individuals
25
and as successors-in-interest and personal representatives of the
26
estate of their son, Jordon Almgren, against William and Katherine
27
Shultz, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Health Services, Contra
28
Costa County Office of the Sheriff, and Contra Costa County
1
Sheriff’s Deputy Miguel Aguilera.
2
2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the last four
3
Defendants listed, referred to as County Defendants, with leave to
4
amend within fourteen days, Docket No. 19, and ordered Plaintiffs
5
to request entry of default against William and Katherine Shultz,
6
Docket No. 18.
7
entered a stipulated dismissal of the claims against County
8
Defendants.
9
against individual Defendants William and Katherine Shultz
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Docket No. 1.
On July 18,
On July 27, 2016, Plaintiffs and County Defendants
Docket No. 23.
As a result, only state law claims
remained.
On August 1, 2016, Defendant Katherine Shultz filed her
12
answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.
13
2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to demonstrate the Court’s
14
jurisdiction over their claims against Katherine Shultz.
15
No. 25.
16
against Katherine Shultz without prejudice.
17
Docket No. 24.
On August 2,
Docket
On August 12, 2016, the Court dismissed the claims
Docket No. 27.
On July 28, 2016, the Clerk entered default as to Defendant
18
William Shultz.
19
ordered Plaintiffs to move for default judgment against William
20
Shultz and to demonstrate the Court’s jurisdiction over their
21
claims against him.
Docket No. 22.
Docket No. 28.
22
23
On August 16, 2016, the Court
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court must exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
24
all non-federal claims that are “so related to claims in the
25
action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of
26
the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
27
States Constitution.”
28
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when "the district
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2
A district court may
1
court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original
2
jurisdiction."
3
Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (district
4
court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental
5
jurisdiction is triggered by any one of the conditions in
6
§ 1367(c)).
7
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Associates,
The Court’s “discretion to decline to exercise supplemental
8
jurisdiction over state law claims . . . is informed by the
9
[United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)] values of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
‘economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’”
11
1001.
12
repeatedly held that, “in the usual case in which all federal-law
13
claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . .
14
will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
15
remaining state-law claims.”
16
University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)).
17
in such a case state law claims generally should be dismissed,
18
although dismissal is not required.
19
383 U.S. at 726); Carnegie-Mellon, 48 U.S. at 350.
Acri, 114 F.3d at
Following Supreme Court precedent, the Ninth Circuit has
Id. at 1001 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon
As a result,
Id. at 1000 (citing Gibbs,
20
DISCUSSION
21
Because jurisdiction is a threshold matter, Steel Co. v.
22
Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998), the
23
Court considers first the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over
24
Plaintiffs’ state law claims.
25
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law
26
claims, it does not reach Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment.
27
28
Because the Court declines to
Because Plaintiffs’ four federal claims have been dismissed
and Plaintiffs have not alleged any federal claims against the
3
1
sole remaining Defendant, the Court has discretion to decide
2
whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
3
remaining state law claims.
4
the Gibbs factors of economy, convenience, fairness and comity.
5
The Court’s discretion is guided by
Plaintiffs urge the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction
6
over their wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional
7
distress claims in order to enter default judgment and hold a
8
hearing on the amount of damages.
9
final proceedings are not complex, and that declining jurisdiction
Plaintiffs argue that these
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
would force Plaintiffs to expend additional resources to sue
11
William Shultz in state court.
12
The Court finds that the Gibbs factors weigh against
13
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining
14
state law claims.
15
before the Court a relatively short time--approximately four
16
months--and has not required complex motion practice or any
17
discovery.
18
the facts and history of this case would not be great.
19
will not be materially harmed by any delay in their potential
20
relief because Plaintiffs acknowledge that William Schultz is
21
incapable of paying monetary damages at any point in the
22
foreseeable future.
23
The case is not close to trial.
It has been
The burden on a state court to familiarize itself with
Plaintiffs
Pl.’s Mot. for Default Judgment at 8.
Because only state law claims remain, comity strongly favors
24
dismissal.
25
under state law is not necessarily simple, even assuming
26
Plaintiffs’ evidence goes uncontested, and would best be decided
27
by a state court with a “surer-footed reading of applicable law.”
28
Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726.
Furthermore, the determination of Plaintiffs’ damages
4
1
Finally, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly upheld district
courts’ exercise of discretion to decline supplemental
3
jurisdiction over remaining state claims after federal claims had
4
been dismissed.
5
816 F.3d 1255, 1265 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s
6
summary judgment for defendants on federal claim and directing
7
court on remand to “first consider whether to continue to exercise
8
its supplemental jurisdiction” before considering remaining state
9
law claim); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
Cir. 2010) (“‘[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims
11
are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be
12
considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine--judicial
13
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity--will point toward
14
declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law
15
claims.’”) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7).
16
See, e.g., Coomes v. Edmonds School Dist. No. 15,
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the balance of factors
17
tips against retaining the state law claims and dismisses these
18
claims without prejudice to re-filing in state court.
19
20
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion is
21
DENIED.
22
Shultz are dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state
23
court.
24
Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendant William
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
Dated: October 5, 2016
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?